Will Trump Reinstate a Ban on Women in Combat?

SP5 Mark Kuzinski — Mon, 05 Dec 2016 10:22:37 -0500

As Trump fills out his Cabinet, advocates for women in uniform are watching closely to see if he will overturn Defense Secretary Ash Carter's December 2015 order that opened all military positions to women.
So, will Trump Reinstate a Ban on Women in Combat? Vote and comments please.

Response by SFC Marcus Belt made Dec 5 at 2016 10:25 AM

SFC Marcus Belt — Mon, 05 Dec 2016 10:25:04 -0500

No genie has ever been stuffed BACK into the bottle, have they?

Response by SSG Kyle Stromgren made Dec 5 at 2016 10:26 AM

SSG Kyle Stromgren — Mon, 05 Dec 2016 10:26:33 -0500

That is an interesting question should he lets wait and see if the women who have gone infantry can cut it in the field on a large scale. I know a lot of men that don't.

Response by Alan K. made Dec 5 at 2016 10:26 AM

Alan K. — Mon, 05 Dec 2016 10:26:40 -0500

He will fine tune it for sure.....

Response by Capt Judith Galloway made Dec 5 at 2016 10:56 AM

Capt Judith Galloway — Mon, 05 Dec 2016 10:56:14 -0500

Trump is going to listen to General Dunford. No women in combat. Read Lt Col Robert Maginnis' book, Deadly Consequences: How Cowards are Pushing Women into Combat.
Under Obama's policy of gender norming women would be ordered into combat units to make up a 10 percent critical mass as that's what sociologists say is required for successful integration. There is ample evidence of the damage women would do to a combat unit if this policy were promulgated. Women will not be volunteering in sufficient numbers to make this policy feasible. In the all volunteer force we are not short of men who can meet the current physical fitness standards for combat specialties. Forcing women into combat would be catastrophic in every way. This is common sense. Women are a threat to good order and discipline in combat units. No matter how they conduct themselves. No matter how superhuman they prove themselves. It is not a question of that. Their very presence is disruptive. Why is this so hard to grasp?

Response by SFC William Stephens A. Jr., 3 MSM, JSCM made Dec 5 at 2016 10:59 AM

SFC William Stephens A. Jr., 3 MSM, JSCM — Mon, 05 Dec 2016 10:59:17 -0500

Show me any women howitzer crew on a Paladin M109A6/A7 who can LOAD/SHOOT and FIRE a TOT with in 30 seconds or less against any male crew, until we get self-loaders, they can keep shaving they heads and carrying men through the mud and fire, but prove it on a TIME ON TARGET with the bad guys are coming. I rest my case.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Dec 5 at 2016 11:26 AM

SGM Erik Marquez — Mon, 05 Dec 2016 11:26:49 -0500

I hope he does not kill the initiative. What I hope he does is require his service chiefs to create tough, realistic MAXIMUM standards by MOS, and then say.. You want the job, it's yours, pass the test..Male, female, Trans, Lez, Gay, easter bunny, no different. Have no medical, mental, physical needs that can not be met in austere combat environments, and pass the physicality test... Then get busy and train, like your life depends on it,,,,because it does..

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Dec 5 at 2016 12:03 PM

Lt Col Jim Coe — Mon, 05 Dec 2016 12:03:19 -0500

Probably not right away. President Trump will have other, bigger, issues on his agenda for the first 100 days of his term. He will need to spend his political capital on more important issues like lowering taxes, repeal of the ACA, increasing Defense spending, and reshaping the USA's foreign policy.

Response by SSG Wally Lawver made Dec 5 at 2016 1:51 PM

SSG Wally Lawver — Mon, 05 Dec 2016 13:51:31 -0500

Whatever he does, it will probaly not be politically correct. He will probaly allow whats best for our nations defense happen, irregardless of what some loud, dont have a dog in the fight anyway groups say or think.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Dec 5 at 2016 2:20 PM

Capt Seid Waddell — Mon, 05 Dec 2016 14:20:03 -0500

With the appointments he has already made, I suspect that the PC component of the military will be swept away in due course.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Dec 5 at 2016 2:20 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Mon, 05 Dec 2016 14:20:38 -0500

I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read that somebody would attempt to bar women in combat SP5 Mark Kuzinski. For thousand so years raping, killing, pillaging, burning towns and crops, and enslaving any survivors has been part of warfare. This is certainly the case in Nigeria, Iraq, Syria and a host of other wars where radical-Muslims are involved.
Linear warfare went out by WWI as operations have been conducted in non-linear fashion in every war since. There are no front lines per se and every deployed man or women is subject to being involved in the fight of their lives.
I think the question should have been along the lines of "Will Trump Reinstate a Ban on Women serving in Direct and Close-Combat specialties"

Response by Maj Kim Patterson made Dec 5 at 2016 3:50 PM

Maj Kim Patterson — Mon, 05 Dec 2016 15:50:09 -0500

I wish I hadn't spent all my up votes. Speaking purely off the cuff and with no bonified sources as reference, my opinion is Trump will try to shift the role of women back into the home and out of any job market including the military. How long this might take or if it is even possible remains to be seen. I believe there are other matters he will address first. I will be watching from my blanket fort, shored up with crayons and coloring books. As someone once told me "Shut up and Color" for those times I want to say more but not dig in deeper. This is not a black and white hard answer.

Response by SFC George Smith made Dec 5 at 2016 4:04 PM

SFC George Smith — Mon, 05 Dec 2016 16:04:26 -0500

I think once he takes over he will leave things in place...

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Dec 5 at 2016 4:32 PM

MSgt James Mullis — Mon, 05 Dec 2016 16:32:59 -0500

I doubt it. However, he might reinstate any school graduation standards that might have changed under Ash Carter..

Response by LTC Joseph Gross made Dec 5 at 2016 4:45 PM

LTC Joseph Gross — Mon, 05 Dec 2016 16:45:59 -0500

Let's keep in mind that the wrong question was asked. What he is really asking is a Ban on Women in COMBAT ARMS MOSs.

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 5 at 2016 5:54 PM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 05 Dec 2016 17:54:00 -0500

ATTENTION FELLOW RP'ers: For those of you who are against woman in direct combat roles NEWS FLASH: Women aren't crawling out of the woodwork to do so (proportionality wise, either are men).

Response by SPC Erich Guenther made Dec 5 at 2016 6:24 PM

SPC Erich Guenther — Mon, 05 Dec 2016 18:24:19 -0500

I seriously doubt he will reverse the women in combat issue, not his style, especially now that women have been through the training. I don't see General Mattis being for reversal at this point either. The real question is will he coax Republicans to sign into law that women now have to register for Selective Service. Why the Republicans are against that measure now is a huge mystery to me. They need to change the SS Registration process.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Dec 6 at 2016 1:40 AM

SSG Roger Ayscue — Tue, 06 Dec 2016 01:40:56 -0500

I sure as Hell hope so

Response by Claudio Alpaca made Dec 6 at 2016 8:33 AM

Claudio Alpaca — Tue, 06 Dec 2016 08:33:42 -0500

If that should happen we shall go back of years on our history, morally and materially, and our readiness, ability, interplay should have an impairement. We all are aware of the role plaied on Army by women, of their valors and their preparation and also we releaze that gender difference is our patrimony and richness, a richness that make possible an interplay and relationship at 360°. We shoud not imagine this happen but, really, that may concretize and we say: "get this equiibre of genders, that richness, that patrimony and integration be and continue to growing, get we may count on a multifaceted Army, a multidomain field where all gender have peculiarities and where the interplay between potentiate our activity and professionalism, making Army a big family, a family where all are one and sinergistically act

Response by SGT James Colwell made Dec 6 at 2016 8:35 AM

SGT James Colwell — Tue, 06 Dec 2016 08:35:15 -0500

I hope he does. Women in combat units will create additional and unnecessary stress on the unit as a whole. This has nothing to do with whether or not women are capable. Women can handle huge amounts of stress, but the stress of combat is different. Their male counterparts will be distracted for at least one of two reasons. There will be the distraction of physical attraction, and/or there will be the distraction brought about by the perceived need to take additional protective measures for the women in their unit. If Mattis is confirmed as Sec Def, it would not surprise me if that is one of the first things he does.

Response by COL Mikel J. Burroughs made Dec 6 at 2016 8:54 AM

COL Mikel J. Burroughs — Tue, 06 Dec 2016 08:54:37 -0500

SP5 Mark Kuzinski I hope that Trump doesn't return that ban on women. I truly believe with his pick for the SEC DEF the ban will not be put back in place. I hope that he will add women to the registration for the draft as well. Just my 2 cents!

Response by SPC Matthew Birkinbine made Dec 6 at 2016 9:29 AM

SPC Matthew Birkinbine — Tue, 06 Dec 2016 09:29:31 -0500

There's no need to reinstate that ban. Women want equal rights. I don't know why they don't register for selective service already.

Response by COL John Hudson made Dec 6 at 2016 9:33 AM

COL John Hudson — Tue, 06 Dec 2016 09:33:16 -0500

Lot of emotion attached to this issue. Raised in another generation/dimension to treat females as the "gentle" gender, it took direct combat experience to teach me that not all women want to be mothers. So called 'Feminist' movements successfully focused attention on "equal rights and abilities," opening virtually every door out there to any woman desiring to step up in all areas of endeavor. Regardless of how history will record the journey, I truly believe that "equality" means exactly that. Women in today's world should be required to register for the Draft in equal measure to men (in the event of national emergency and/or conflict). Women can't have it both ways....'equal' means "EQUAL" - both for the good and bad that comes with living in a cruel and pernicious world.

And get off that bovine spatter comparing females to males. Leadership isn't so dumb that woman would be assigned to heavy crew-served weapons or hard physical units in direct competition with men. Never forget those four little words at the end of each contract or set of orders, "needs of the service." It doesn't require Arnold strong-and-bigger to fly a gunship, command a destroyer, run an M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank or properly operate any one of hundreds of systems in all branches of the military, including UAVs or all of the digital war-fighting equipment available in today's military.

You bone-heads out there thumping your chests are in for a huge surprise when you show up to your new unit commanded by an educated, intelligent, and physically capable FEMALE who's your next boss...running circles around you on the next two-miler. Next time you're nailed down behind a rock in the sandbox, don't act too surprised when Suzy's voice comes over the airwaves riding to your rescue in a +3,000hp fully loaded gunship to save your bacon. Count me in at all times and places (Vietnam 2x - Balkan Conflict 1x - Iraq = two 20 month tours - all three wars in full combat and NOT behind a desk). JCH

Response by CPL Dennis Keith made Dec 6 at 2016 9:33 AM

CPL Dennis Keith — Tue, 06 Dec 2016 09:33:31 -0500

Direct Combat Arms should always belong to males. Stronger than females, so can tolerate the abusive conditions better.

Response by Sgt John Steinmeier made Dec 6 at 2016 12:14 PM

Sgt John Steinmeier — Tue, 06 Dec 2016 12:14:44 -0500

I guess my question is will Mattis (or whoever becomes the Sec Def) reinstate the ban? Wasn't it Secretary of Defense Carter who knocked the wall down?

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 6 at 2016 12:36 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 06 Dec 2016 12:36:01 -0500

Maybe I'm not that bright but I genuinely fail to see the issue with women in combat, provided they meet the standard. Frankly, I can't fathom why we have different standards to begin with. It seems like the same blind illogical panic as when DADT was repealed. The world didn't end then and it won't now. By excluding 50% of the population from any job we are doing ourselves a disservice by not assessing the qualifications of each applicant.

Response by PO1 Michael Garrett made Dec 6 at 2016 3:20 PM

PO1 Michael Garrett — Tue, 06 Dec 2016 15:20:28 -0500

My guess is that DT will defer to the military on this. A study will be conducted and whatever recommendation is made, DT will act on. However, I agree with one poster here, DT has more important things to focus on. This will not occupy his time for very long. What will occur is a lot of political maneuvering both for and against it.

Response by Bill Husztek made Dec 6 at 2016 3:20 PM

Bill Husztek — Tue, 06 Dec 2016 15:20:40 -0500

He should.

Response by Bill Husztek made Dec 6 at 2016 3:28 PM

Bill Husztek — Tue, 06 Dec 2016 15:28:56 -0500

He should. Forget equal rights, gender equality, etc. When I served, if we'd have had women at risk as men we would have behaved differently under fire. That is an unfair burden to put on a fighting man in combat. I don't care if its super woman or Hillary Clinton or any other female. She is a distraction to the good order of the unit.

Response by MAJ James Woods made Dec 6 at 2016 3:58 PM

MAJ James Woods — Tue, 06 Dec 2016 15:58:56 -0500

In today's unconventional operational environment, it's not a question of women in combat, it's a question of women in combat oriented career fields. I couldn't care less if I had male or female soldiers as long as they lived up to the code and got the job done. Separate standards that have very little to do with how one performs in combat is the problem with our military.

Response by CW4 Glen Nardin made Dec 6 at 2016 4:12 PM

CW4 Glen Nardin — Tue, 06 Dec 2016 16:12:51 -0500

As the Greatest Generation passes, much more should've said about what role our women played in defense of this country. We won the bloody war for the world and women back home back filled the support roles that were crucially needed. We turned our factories into gun, ammo, aircraft and many more military support points. Women were there. The US will always have roles for females in the military and I believe they should serve according to their individual abilities and no less. If they are qualified for combat roles and it will not cost lives to add them, they should serve, but not as conscripts. We need stability at the Homefront as well as the front lines.

Response by SSgt Brad Becker made Dec 6 at 2016 4:57 PM

SSgt Brad Becker — Tue, 06 Dec 2016 16:57:17 -0500

I hope so before some one gets killed because of it. There is no way no matter what you will ever say to make me believe that the average Woman makes a better or even equal Combat Soldier or Marine then the Average Man. If they where they would have been serving 240 years ago. Every one wants to win wars so every one would use them. You use women just like you use old men like me and young boys when your loosing a war and its all you have left. This is the dumbest politically correct crap that they ever force feed us ever.
Bunch of Bull Crap.

Response by Susan Weekley made Dec 6 at 2016 5:56 PM

Susan Weekley — Tue, 06 Dec 2016 17:56:48 -0500

One coin for another. Lets exchange thoughts. Services train all soldiers with weapons, possibly because they will be used? It's still a voluntary military.

Response by Cpl Rebecca Nicholson made Dec 6 at 2016 8:58 PM

Cpl Rebecca Nicholson — Tue, 06 Dec 2016 20:58:34 -0500

I think it is really important that before we transition women into full infantry units some pretty heavy duty socialization needs to happen in the civilian world first. Like from birth to entry into bootcamp. Most women are not brought up to be aggressive, even with the threat of serious bodily harm (or death) staring them in the face. That does not mean "all" of them, but too many of them to make a cohesive and effective fighting unit. That being said, serving on battleships, or with flight crews may be a lot less problem some, if the flight doesn't crash in enemy territory. But serving in frontline infantry units is difficult for most men, let alone the majority of women.

Response by Capt Michael Halpin made Dec 6 at 2016 11:00 PM

Capt Michael Halpin — Tue, 06 Dec 2016 23:00:18 -0500

Trump is smart enough to know that women will face combat and must train for it but he also knows they do not belong in the combat arms. Many have tried and found to be unable to physically endure it over time. Additionally the sexual tension that will result will get guys killed. A survey of women Marines showed that only 1% wanted to serve in the infantry. The trouble is not worth the price.

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 7 at 2016 5:42 AM

LCpl Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 07 Dec 2016 05:42:20 -0500

What for, its working for those who are qualified.

Response by CSM Thomas McGarry made Dec 7 at 2016 11:48 AM

CSM Thomas McGarry — Wed, 07 Dec 2016 11:48:23 -0500

I don't think so as I think this cat is already out of the bag. Besides what would he do, rescind the Ranger qualification for those females who have completed that course?

Response by SSgt Brad Becker made Dec 7 at 2016 6:34 PM

SSgt Brad Becker — Wed, 07 Dec 2016 18:34:24 -0500

Just a crazy idea. I can tell you after 5 months living in the field with the Artillery, with no phones, no computers and no RR. Women taking a bath from our common wash bucket in my Squad would have been like a strip show. I don't see how it could be done and not require special things done curtains or some thing. It would totally distract horny young 18-28 year old men at the peak of their young man hoods. I just don't know what to think. I can't see any way it would work. Its a logistical nightmare. I say 18 because 17 year old men where not allowed to serve in Combat zones do to their age. They had Stand guard in the rear.

Response by SSgt Brad Becker made Dec 8 at 2016 12:38 AM

SSgt Brad Becker — Thu, 08 Dec 2016 00:38:16 -0500

Lets look back at History a bit. Women in the Infantry in battle, 1st and 2nd Bull run?? Fredericksburg?? Gettysburg??, Antietam??, Shiloh??, Chancellorsville??, Bella Woods??? Bataan??? Wake?? Guadalcanal??, Tarawa??, Saipan??, Iwo Jima??, Normandy??, Anzio?? Battle of the Bulge??, Frozen mountains of the Korean war??, Chosin reservoir??, The Jungles on foot patrol in Vietnam??
The Mountain of Afghanistan on foot?? Tell me how this will work because I am not seeing it. I don't see how it would be possible and be productive. How having women
in these locations and situations would have been better for the fighting force. I think people are smoking crack and need a piss test.
I get mechanized patrols, but that is not how most wars are fought. Why will our next wars be easier then the ones we have already fought in?? I think its nuts..

Response by Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen made Dec 8 at 2016 8:18 AM

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen — Thu, 08 Dec 2016 08:18:18 -0500

Why???

Response by SSgt Brad Becker made Dec 8 at 2016 9:38 AM

SSgt Brad Becker — Thu, 08 Dec 2016 09:38:20 -0500

The Marines did a study that took 2 years to prepare . 1 Battalion reinforced with men and women in it and another of all men. The units with women preformed at about 75% of the performance standards. Compared to the male units which achieved like 98-99%. The scores did not support the Presidents agenda so the Defense department threw out the findings. Took about 2 years because the Marines had to form units, train them before testing them. They still failed. A 75% in combat is a D+. You get a D+ IN COMBAT that is a lot of dead Marines

Response by PO1 Kenneth Cardwell made Dec 14 at 2016 4:37 PM

PO1 Kenneth Cardwell — Wed, 14 Dec 2016 16:37:43 -0500

No, but he will ask questions that have not been asked! I served with Navy Seals and if you want women in special ops, then men and women will have to sleep same tent, same bathrooms etc. You have to be one and separating them in separate tents, rooms and etc will not allow them to be one!

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 14 at 2016 7:58 PM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 14 Dec 2016 19:58:55 -0500

It is real easy as long as people don't get their panties in a bunch. One standard (current male standard), if you can pass than you pass. That way there will not be any kind of talk about not deserving or earning the spot. If you want equal pay earn the positions equally. I should not earn the same pay but have to do more work or work harder than you. If only 2 females make it, so be it, but they earned the right to get shot by the enemy like their male counterparts.

Response by PO1 Michael Garrett made Dec 15 at 2016 1:06 PM

PO1 Michael Garrett — Thu, 15 Dec 2016 13:06:04 -0500

At the risk of being politically incorrect on this site, think of the question in this term-can a soldier become pregnant? That alone excludes time from combat and even combat support roles.

Response by SPC Byron Skinner made Dec 27 at 2016 10:49 PM

SPC Byron Skinner — Tue, 27 Dec 2016 22:49:57 -0500

Sp4 Byron Skinner Very unlikely, I think it would take an act of Congress and Congress has no taste for such a Bill. The old Phyllis Shafiafly arm of the conservatives Republicans died with her. Although a factor that has come into play are the needs of the service. Women make up half or more of the population world world wide, we are definitely in the era of asymmetric warfare that doesn't discriminate by gender among its fighters. Secondly there is dealing with females taken into custody in these under developed countries, having a female or two in a Platoon could be quite useful. Sorry guys but I think that opening up all jobs in the military was a good decision. This is a volunteer military, if women don't want to be in a maneuver warfare branch she doesn't have to.

Response by SPC Brian Mason made Dec 29 at 2016 12:34 AM

SPC Brian Mason — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 00:34:14 -0500

Is there any indication that he might? I hope not. I voted for him; in that his plans and ideas for this country are what I voted for, not the person. I served with many female Medics. They performed as required by the MOS and higher. I deployed with them and went out on front line missions as well. Being a man or woman should be no indicator or limit to doing any MOS.
My fellow lady soldiers/veterans......I'm proud of you. I support you. Do what you feel is the best; even if it's not the 'normal'.

Response by Carolyn Agosta made Feb 8 at 2017 9:35 AM

Carolyn Agosta — Wed, 08 Feb 2017 09:35:33 -0500

Of course women should be allowed to serve all posts in the military!

Response by SPC Brian Stephens made Feb 8 at 2017 9:04 PM

SPC Brian Stephens — Wed, 08 Feb 2017 21:04:12 -0500

My bet would be no.

Response by SP5 Robert Ruck made Feb 28 at 2017 9:13 AM

SP5 Robert Ruck — Tue, 28 Feb 2017 09:13:21 -0500

I have no problem whatsoever with women working in any MOS they are qualified for. I have a a problem if standards are reduced or quotas are implemented. The same set of high standards must be met by anyone applying for any MOS in the military.

Response by CW4 Glen Nardin made Mar 2 at 2017 12:36 PM

CW4 Glen Nardin — Thu, 02 Mar 2017 12:36:24 -0500

Has anyone heard anything if Trump has even considered the subject?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 8 at 2017 8:46 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Oct 2017 20:46:24 -0400

I wish we would. I hate being the only female in going out to the field with these guys. Being forced reclassed into FA just to serve on active army is among my worst experiences in the service.

Response by SPC Gary Welch made Jul 21 at 2018 8:20 PM

SPC Gary Welch — Sat, 21 Jul 2018 20:20:52 -0400

I am just waiting for the first females come home in body bags and see the uproar and I want to see it when an infantry squad has women in it and they get pregnant and it cuts that squads effectiveness